Autism Street

An anonymous friend of a friend who is member of the Evidence Of Harm Yahoo group, forwarded me a recent message to that group from David Kirby, which reads in part:

This is interesting. Calif Dept of Health Services will be presenting DDS data at IMFAR

They will report that the number of 3-5 year old cases was still rising as of Sept 2006 – thus no evidence for a major role for thimerosal in ASD was found.

But, the abstract makes a very interesting point. It says that: “Limitations of the DDS database and lack of individual exposure data prevent conclusions, based on these data, about thimerosal as a cause or modifier of autism in a specific subgroup or child.

(Emphases are mine)

I read this to mean that one cannot apply the California data to prove that a specific group or child (ie one with a genetic predisposition) was NOT harmed by thimerosal. Also, there is no way to know for sure exactly how much mercury individual children were exposed to during the period in question.

Please, someone explain to me why I am wrong, and that includes any lurkers out there who believe that the California numbers mean it is time to close the thimerosal books once and for all.

I am being serious. I really thought these numbers were probably the death knell of this hypothesis, and they may still be. But it seems that the State of California would have us interpret these numbers with a bit more caution.

The abstract is below. ALL comments welcome, and that includes skeptics. Thanks. DK

Read more…

Data for the CDDS 3-5 year-old autism caseload cohort became available today. The caseload has changed from 6348 at the end of Q4 in 2006, to 6533 at end of Q1 in 2007.

What more can really be said about this? (If you’re a new reader, there is additional information and links to other resources here, or at the link to the left “California: CDDS Q3 2006 Autism Data”). 

Open comments thread if anyone is still interested in discussing these numbers from California. David?

It’s been a busy month for Autism Street and the old e-mail inbox so far. Amidst a doubling of visitors in the past week (almost entirely referred from Google searches for Deirdre Imus), there’s been some pretty interesting letters. In fact, one stands out in stark contrast to autism nonsense from the likes of Deirdre Imus and a DAN! practitioner who wrote to Autism Street about NCD Zeolite.

This letter comes from a mom who appears to be “moving on” from the Evidence Of Harm Yahoo e-mail group (and maybe others). The letter is not addressed to Autism Street, rather it’s something that this mom wants get out, and she chose to start here. Fine by me - I’m going to go ahead and post it, and call this anonymous mom a guest blogger.

I don’t know all the people mentioned in the letter, although I’m familiar with Erik Nanstiel from other bloggers, his participation in the comments at Left Brain/Right Brain in the past, and scathing commentary from Brian Deer. I’m also familiar with the name Mark Blaxill from the infamous first baby haircuts paper. So if you’re inclined to comment or ask questions about this post, please direct them to “Lurker Mom”. Whether or not she participates in the comments will be up to her.

Note to “Lurker Mom”: If you do choose to comment/respond, please make sure to use the same e-mail address (it won’t be published) you sent your letter from, so we can verify that it’s you.

Here’s what “Lurker Mom” had to say:

Read more…

The 58th Meeting Of The Skeptic’s Circle is up at Geek Counterpoint.

Head on over for a roundup of some of the best skeptical blogging from the past couple of weeks.

Skeptic’s Circle #58 — I’ve got a whole lot of woo for you…

- By Not Mercury and Do’C 

Going with the premise that some questions received in the Autism Street mailbox may be on the minds of more than a single person once in a while, responses in the form of an article may be posted from time to time. For context, the complete letter will be provided first.

One such recent letter just happens to come from a DAN! Practitioner. Blogger Not Mercury is back to take a look with us, and we’ve co-written a response. We’re not posting the DAN! Practitioner’s name or list of initials that follow it (but he or she is welcome to join the discussion in the comments under any name) - we’ll just say it’s from a Dr. Doolittle. We hope you’re ready to read a little more about how this DAN! Practitioner looks at NCD Zeolite.

Here’s the letter:

Read more…